TRAFFIC — short for Trade Records Analysis of Flora and Fauna in Commerce — was established in 1976 by WWF and IUCN to monitor threats arising from the trade in wild animals and plants. As a co-founding partner, WWF has been structurally foundational to TRAFFIC since its inception: TRAFFIC's very existence is inseparable from WWF's institutional backing. TRAFFIC describes itself as the leading global NGO on wildlife trade monitoring, serving as an authoritative source of data, analysis, and policy guidance on which species cross borders, in what volumes, and through which routes. By 2015, it had become a primary reference point for international journalists covering the rhino poaching crisis.
This founding relationship runs deeper than a logo on a letterhead. In some regions, such as India, TRAFFIC functions as a program within WWF's national network rather than as a separately administered body. Between 2014 and 2016, TRAFFIC and WWF jointly ran the Wildlife Crime Initiative, a coordinated program with shared staffing and a US$9.4 million USAID grant awarded to both organizations.
This structural context matters when evaluating how both organizations responded to contested policy proposals. When TRAFFIC and WWF jointly opposed Pembient's synthetic rhino horn proposal in 2015, they were not two independent bodies that happened to reach the same conclusion. They are institutionally aligned partners, sharing governance structures, funding streams, and strategic direction. That alignment does not automatically invalidate their scientific or policy positions, but it is a material fact for any journalist, researcher, or policymaker assessing whose voices were shaping the debate, and from what institutional vantage point.
Which makes the April 2016 TRAFFIC Bulletin all the more notable. In this issue, TRAFFIC's president Steven Broad and Gayle Burgess published the most detailed analytical engagement the network had produced on synthetic rhino horn. Coming from senior staff who had appeared in the 2015 press cluster as critics of the Pembient approach, the paper was significant precisely because it moved the argument away from the moral question of whether substitution is a legitimate conservation goal, and onto the harder economic question of whether it could actually work.
The Broad and Burgess paper distinguishes two strategies that synthetic horn might serve. The first is overt substitution: making a high-quality bio-identical horn available at a lower price, persuading consumers to switch, and reducing pressure on wild populations through normal price-and-preference dynamics. The second is covert insertion of inferior synthetics into the supply chain, undermining buyer confidence in the entire market, a Gresham's Law strategy in which bad horn drives out good.
Their assessment is cautious and conditional, not categorically opposed. The paper sets out a list of viability and impact questions any synthetic-horn strategy would need to answer, including whether production volumes could be sufficient, whether existing law enforcement architecture would be undermined, whether the criminal networks that currently control the trade would adapt to undercut the synthetics, and whether revenues from the trade would actually be reinvested in rhino conservation.
"It would be rash to rule out the possibility that trade in synthetic rhinoceros horn could play a role in future conservation strategies." -- Steven Broad & Gayle Burgess, TRAFFIC Bulletin, April 2016
The piece is, in retrospect, the high-water mark of TRAFFIC's analytical engagement with the question. In the years that followed, the organization's public position narrowed, even as the internal analysis its own staff had produced suggested that experimentation could not be ruled out. This post sits inside a wider thread in the archive that tracks how mainstream conservation organizations moved from analytical openness to settled opposition without the underlying evidence shifting.
View larger →
